next, high school teachers and illinois about prepping for the tuesday advance placement government exam. "washington journal" is next. >> "wall street journal" reports that health insurance companies must help them that come courtesy of the obama administration health care law. it is scheduled to expand into massachusetts and new york next week, despite concerns from both governors in those states and still more concerning mitt romney and alleged bullying. our first 45 minutes we are looking to get your reaction to the story, specifically if it matters to you. you can tell us why or why not on the phone lines this morning by calling 202737-0001 for

democrats. for republicans it's -- you can reach us on twitter, facebook.com/c-span. and you can always send us an email at journal at c-span.org. here's the paper write-up of the story that took a lot of news this week in washington, and in the united states. "washington post" friday edition, romney's pranks could go too far. talks about his time at prep school, including interaction with a student about cutting off hair, a story you probably heard about this week. that's what we're getting reaction to this morning. a lot out this week, but the washington post buzzman who served as the go between the paper and the public put out something on his blog that you can find on the washington post

website. the head line says mitt romney's bullying story holds up scrutiny. it talks about one of the original paragraphs that occurred on the online story. this is the original online paragraph.

there is now an editors note at the bottom of the story, the post is not calling it a correction, i think it is a correction but not jermaine to the central theme of the story. we're interested in getting your perspective. specifically as you read and heard about this week and if it matters to you. again the numbers will be on the screen and you can reach out to us on one of three social platforms this morning. our first call this morning haymarket, virginia. this is on our republican line. steve, go ahead. caller: yes, i'm a conservative. first of all, "the washington

post" is not an honest newspaper. if you reed the stories about disney, you will find out they merely make things up in order to satisfy their own agenda. and i have not bought a "post" since the disney controversy in haymarket -- as far as the story about mitt romney i give it absolutely no credibility, and i went to a military school. i was hazed as a freshman as a result. i've joined the swim team, i lifted weights, i became a wrestler. and i couldn't play football because we had a second string guy that was at the school named jack hans, so we had a exceptional football team for a high school. but the point is, it's hazing, it is not bullying. and what hazing does is it inspires people, i used to have c's, when i got into school i was an a and b student. in other words it's what makes

people better. it's part of the whole private school menure if you want to. they enentire people to be better and not to do things that are detrimental to their character, debtry mental to the further of their education. >> so the story and the action of it doesn't change your view of mitt romney at all? >> absolutely not. in fact i think that's what made him a better man. i know exactly what he went through, what he did to that guy. unfortunately, he's the actual witness to it has passed away right now, and we are left with nothing more than the musings of the lying "washington post." host: phoenix, arizona is next. mark, dent line. caller: good morning. you know, it reminds me of the

kerry situation with the swift boat, how they will get into the candidate's past and try to bring up dirt. i personally am not for romney but i'm like let's play fair. are these things that really are going to matter to a present day individual, these many, many years later. the same with kerry. i mean the guy had his disagreements with vietnam with what happened over there. and the opposition took advantage of that, got people from the actual time period you were involved. same thing now with romney. the guy was in high school, you know? he's changed, he's a complete he different person now. he's not the 17, 18-year-old kid running for president. he's the multimillionaire adult. doesn't matter. host: the reaction from the family goes as follow, this appeared in several pieces. from town hall --

caller: what people need to understand is that hazing, pranks are three different things. you don't put the three together. when you bully somebody, that is not sort of the practical joke, that's not something that will -- liking what happened to them. romney did not deny the fact that he did it. according to the story, the group of men held that young man down and cut his hair. that is not considered a practical joke. that is a bullying type of situation. what that does, even when he was

a late teenager, that molds the character of a person. host: so it would shape your opinion of him as it stands today? caller: yes. some people don't change. the one thing i always would like to know what if this person was found actually committing the bullying? was he punished and what was the punishment? host: jefferson city, tennessee? johnny, independent line. caller: yes, i'm a former republican but i'm an independent now. the reason, this bullying doesn't matter a bit. that's back when he was a child, a kid, whatever you want to call it. but anyway, what does matter to me is the way he answers the question, you tell the man's lying. there's one thing i can't do is vote for somebody who is totally a liar. that's exactly what this man is. there's no way in the world i

could ever vote for somebody i cannot trust. lying is one of the worst things you can do and that's what romney's doing on everything he does. host: it was this week -- go ahead finish your thought caller. motte romney appeared on fox news to talk about the story and here's what he had to say. >> first of all, i have no idea what that individual's sexual orientation might be. going back to the 1960's, that's something we didn't discuss. i don't recall the incident myself but i've seen reports. i'm not going to argue with that. there's no question that i did some stupid things when i was in high school. and obviously if i hurt anyone i would be very sorry for it and apologize for it. host: again the phone lines are open if you want to comment on

the story in the "washington post." caller: good morning c-span. long, long time listener and first time i was able to get through. so it's going to be a good morning. my comments on mitt romney and this situation that took place during his high school years, i believe, as does the caller before the last one, that this speaks eons to his character. i think the thing you have to look at as well is what it did to the young man who was victimized by romney. the answer is yes, he could have offered from the trauma of it and the pain and the viciousness

of the incident. unfortunately i understand the man isn't alive to speak to this issue. the other thing that bothers me about him is the story about him putting the dog on the car and traveling for, i don't know what it was, six to 10 hours? i mean these things speak to the character of the man. and i got in plenty of trouble in high school but i never, never, never did anything as vicious and as hurtful as this incident. and i don't view it as a harmless high school prank. i think it speaks to its personality and some deep-rooted tendencies he may have. i don't feel i want a man like that sitting in the white house. so barack obama's looking pretty good to me right now. so those are my thoughts, and i'm so happy to have gotten through. been beening for a long, long

time. so thank you very much. host: just over 20 comments on facebook this morning. here are two. one says who cares, it was so long ago. everybody has things they regret from their past. again, you can make those comments on facebook. also contribute on twitter, as well as the phones this morning. bronx, new york, larry is on our republican line. caller: hi, how are you? good morning. i want to say, what the "washington post" wrote, the family says of the person who romney did it to, they said it never happened! so to me, it's just a big lie. i think the "washington post" dug up one of these classmates that passed away that was gay

and trying to say mitt romney abused this kid or was a bull eye to him, but the family says it never happened. i think it's a big lie. they're just trying to get some more votes for barack obama. and hey, you know, i mean that's politics i guess. host: there was this follow-up when it comes to the timing of the story, coming out of the president's announcement on gay marriage. he writes -- do i think "the post took advantage of the timing? yes. "

brooklyn, new york. good morning. caller: yes. host: you're on, sir. caller: really basically what he did, we all haved a less sent things in us. so i'm not really concerned about that. what i'm concerned about c-span is we've got world problems and y'all are concerning yourself with what somebody did in thed a less sent day. let's talk about the new world war coming into play. how about the bill barack passed about putting military in streets. why they want to take our guns because they don't want resistence. new world order is coming that the first george bush said, the new world order. look on the back of your dollar bill that says it is complete. let's talk about issues! let's get people like tim white and george maxwell, talk about

this stuff. i can tell you what's going to happen tomorrow! host: ok, we're trying to stay on topic though. some other stories, reaction to jpmorgan and $2 billion losses that were posted. jamie diamon at the center of this story this morning. several versions of it. and in the financial times how it hit on volcker.

host: proponents said they were hopeful that news of jpmorgan would provide them with further am mission as they fight the industry to weaken the proposal. host: fort wayne, indiana. independent line. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. i'd like to comment that i believe the bullying story does matter because romney is such a

blank state at this time. he can't or won't talk about his religion. he can't or won't talk his time -- he can't or won't talk about, or his running as far away from his record as governor as he can, because of romney care. and you and i were as responsible for bailing out the olympics as he was because it was government money that bailed out the olympics. host: so when it comes to the allegations itself, it doesn't matter to you? caller: it does, because he's such a nothing. he's such a blank canvas that things like this are going to stick to him. host: were you considering voting for him in the first

place? come um -- as much as there's a choice, i'd like for there to be a choice. but right now there doesn't seem to be a choice to me. host: ok. new york, charlie is on our republican line. caller: yes, what i love about the "washington journal," you will do anything to avoid talking about barack obama's poor numbers when it comes to the economy, ok? i don't remember the "washington post" letting barack obama in 2008. and here is the "washington journal", in league with the "washington post" to help get obama re-elected, which is not going to happen. host: i'll just state right there that's flatly not true but go ahead. and he's hinge up. lake placid, florida.

independent line. caller: yes, good morning. host: hi. caller: this is such a nonissue, i can't tell you why they're starting a program -- host: why is it a non-issue? caller: something that happened in 1965 that can't even be verified as hazing in high school? let's do comparison, pedro. let's go back and see what obama was doing in school. he was hanging out with his mentor frank marshal davis, a drug dealer and also supporter of students for a democratic society, which is a socialist group that he supported, a member of the black panthers. now who do we want for president? or do you feel more comfortable with? someone who layses their classmate or someone who was using drugs, drinking alcohol by his own admission, and some people say selling drugs when he

was a teenager? and the people he hung around with are all anti-american socialists. like marshal davis, the f.b.i. record that's two inches thick. now who do we want? let's go ahead and see who it is. host: did you read the romney story first and foremost? caller: just part of it. i didn't read it, but what i heard they're talking about is cutting some kid's hair. host: from the portions you read did you learn anything from it? caller: that he was a normal, more or less a normal teenager who liked pranks, like a large portion of our kids do today and do back then. and probably you did too. host: can i ask if you were a supporter of his, are you a supporter of his currently? caller: romney? no. i'm not a supporter of romney or obama. host: the only reason i was

asking you, i was wondering if the story changed anything for you after you read about it. caller: i think it's ridiculous that they go to petty stuff to find something. the media has to dig this deep to find nothing. host: is this lake placid, florida right? caller are you there? caller: yes. host: where is lake placid in relation to florida? caller: the middle of the state 40 miles above oak -- above okeechobee. host: michigan, democrat line. caller: yes, good morning. host: good morning. caller: these con federate obama hating racists ought to all give it a rest. the president is doing a wonderful job. and this bullying story goes to the heart of mitt romney. mitt romney is a creative

destructionist, he yields bank capital and the wealth that his father gave him to make money by saddling companies with debt, then closing them down, putting them in bankruptcy like he wanted to do in detroit and made billions. now, all of these obama hating confederates hate the fact that president obama has turned this economic ship around. so, it does go to mitt romney's character. which he has none. host: caller, i'll ask you to connect the dots of the alleged cutting of hair to what he did at binge capital. caller: mitt romney has a deep-seated cold callousness and he doesn't care about human beings. mitt romney cares about money. i'm a father. if some boys held my boy down and cut his hair, there would be

heck to pay. i defy anybody to say that is normal prankster behavior or hazing of any kind. mitt romney does not believe in people, he believes in money. he believes in himself. he's narcissistic, he's cold. and all these obama haters, president obama has done a wonderful job. he got bin laden for us, he turned the economy around. they said the unemployment wouldn't go above 80%, nobody ever said that. they said it's a normal business cycle. host: governor romney expected to address students at liberty university today, a preimminent christian college in virginia. he is set to make the commencement address today. you can watch that live, starting at about 10:20 this morning. see that on c-span. you can also listen to it on c-span radio as well. if you missed that all together, you can catch it later on our

c-span video library. again, mitt romney, you can see that live, 10:20 this morning. statesville, north carolina, john on our republican line talking about the motte romney story this week and if it matters to you. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just curious if "washington post" or c-span has ever run a story on barack obama, the alleged eating dog incident or cocaine use when he was younger? and if the alleged cutting hair, which the family has even said wasn't true, i would believe the family before i would believe the "pennsylvania post." i was wondering if c-span has ever run a story on barack obama's past, eating dog or the cocaine use. host: we've addressed a lot of these issues, but as far as the

story overall, did you read it first and foremost? caller: i just heard what i've heard on tv. would you please answer my question? have you ever run a story on obama eating dog or cocaine use? host: we've had people bring it up in the past. i don't have total recall. caller: mitt romney, 45 minute segments. have you ever run a 45 minute segment on barack obama eating dog or using cocaine? host: i don't recall. caller: i will take that to be a no if you don't recall. host: well, i'll just leave it at that and ask you about the story as far as your initial reactions from it. caller: i think it's just nonsense. the family has already said it wasn't true. and these liberals, and i'm beginning to think c-span, i used to think c-span was fair. but when you start running

stories of this nature, it's so ridiculous. have you ever done anything when you were young that was kind of foolish? and back in the 60's it was a different world than what we got now. people make a big deal out of nothing now. host: when you say that, because i hear people say it's a different world. what do you mean by that? caller: back in the 60's, people just took this to be regular living, you know? just kidding people. i got beat up a few times in school. because i was poor, wore dirty shoes. nasty looking shoes. but i didn't take it personal. i didn't say i was abused and it was going to effect me for the rest of my life. i sucked it in and just went on about my business and made a better person out of me. that's the way i looked at it. host: pat, democrats line, hello. caller: good morning, thanks for

c-span. you see, that's the problem now because of the health care, they don't read nothing. if you really read and find out, this kid was bullied to death, and died two days later after being bullying to death. so won't you stop and read things. just like you should have read the health thing before you sent it to congress. went to the supreme court because it helps people. but nobody reads nothing. they take something for their word. on top of that, obama told you himself he ate dog and smoked reefer. you didn't have to hear it from somebody else. this dog got millions stowed away. he listens to another party instead of running his own mind. so stop and think and read. don't let nobody tell you nothing. thank you. host: before you go, as far as the mitt romney story, did you

read it? caller: yes, i read it. i did not hear it from nobody. host: what did you get it? caller: he scares me. they talk about the anti-christ and all that. they don't even stop and read. stop listening to what people say. investigate things. host: you got that from the story this week? caller: you didn't hear it from somebody else. host: we'll leave it there. "new york times" this morning, julia preston in its national section of the headline is despite opposition, immigration agency to expand fingerprint, they write --

host: milwaukee, good morning. republican line. caller: how you doing? host: hi. caller: it's so hard to believe what's going on now adays. sticks and stones being thrown. it's real difficult to tell who's telling what. it's just difficult, you know? right now i'm looking at track records. what's obama's track record? and it's not good, you know? he wanted to do change, changes for the worse.

because i know three quarters are still out of work. my mother, my stepfather, you know? problems with their jobs and the companies they work for. to me it's track record. everyone can throw sticks and stones all they want, but i you did not see it. >> it is so tough to deal with that. he have to look at a track record. >> she is not a romney fan. >> new york. caller: good morning. to me this is a whole thing of character. let's look at the facts. him and his friends, he was the ringleader of this little pack of guys.

young men of privilege at a private school who tracked down this young man whether he was different or not. they decided they were going to get him. that was it. they tracked him down. they got him down. mitt romney just happens to have a pair of scissors in his pocket? this was premeditated. this was not a prank. it was an ambush. timmy, if my son did that i would be all over him. -- to me, my son did that i would be all over him. mitt romney is a bishop. he is supposed to tell the truth all the time. when house and has go, we dump trash cans of people's yards. that was a prank. attacking somebody is not a prank. that is bullying. the tiger never changes his stripes. he just glosses it over.

business is business. he is the product. this is like a person he was mean all their life. all of a sudden, they've decided to forgive themselves and call themselves a born-again christian. that is another way of saying i have done my dirty deeds and now i'm going to take the exit and not take responsibility. that is how i look at it. this is about character. host: phone lines are open. it is the season of college commencements. there are addresses for various platforms. president obama will speak in new york city on monday. that will take place at 1:10 p.m. on c-span. the video library is also available to you.

you should also know to keep close to the web site to learn about arne duncan. he will address howard university today. look for that as far as when we plan to put that on the air. he can find all that material on our website. the new york times have guidelines that are set by the federal government. here is the right up. this could prove to be one of their most far reaching decisions. psychiatrists are rewriting the manual and have agreed to revise the definition of addiction which could result in millions more people being diagnosed as ad takes impose huge consequences. a revision to the manual would expand the list of recognized simpson's was reducing the number of systems required for a

diagnosis. south carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a few things to say here. once you realize that c-span is on to create controversy, you figure it out what c-span is all about. if the show was boring and they read along with everyone agreed with, there would be no show.

this is why they read from the washington post every morning. it is the most controversy out of the world extreme area. every morning, mostly the washington post. what to figure that out, you can go along with the rest of the things. this happened 50 years ago. what does it matter? let me get this right. the man is worried about mitt romney chasing down some man to cut his hair. about leadok for i to drive drones around all over and drop bombs. let me as the american people this. would you rather have someone cut your hair or would you bomb?r have been dropped a bon would you rather have someone

cut your hair or drop a bomb? there is no need for this to come out here it this is good to have bull come out of the washington post. it is to keep everything away from the economy. obama has nothing to stand on. it is going to be anything to change the subject. the did occur at are the ones who took over the student loans. the democrats are the ones that said it would go up. it is all the democrats. joe biden came out with this sex thing with same-sex marriage. as nothing to do with anything. host: independent line. caller: i just what to make a

comment about the bullying. if you were not there, you don't know. i do know one thing. i am white. i live in savannah. i am born and bred. i lived in atlanta. i love my black people. i'm a white, a gay male with red hair. have been discriminated against and bullied in his life like i was, i pretty much take it in stride. i became better. i went to the marines. i voted for barack obama, the speech she gave on the election night. it was phenomenal. i cannot believe.

i was like thank god. promises. the things he started doing. he contradicted himself. he has fought out on the opposite. what i have seen now, it really tears my heart into. in any case, i cannot vote for him this time. we have people starving to death. just look around.

ec things going up that are new? not really. >> wanted you to hear some of the reaction. this one he talks about congress. this is their need to act on the congressional to do less. after that, you'll hear the republican reaction. she talks about the economy. [video] congress should use that to use this for those that bring jobs back to america. congress should help the millions of americans who have worked hard and made the mortgage payments on time and save at least $3,000 a year. third, congress should help small business owners by giving them a tax break for hiring more workers and paying them hire workers. small businesses are the engines

of economic growth. we should not be holding them back. we should be making it easier for them to succeed. if congress fails to act soon, they could be forced to lay off employees. they're putting americans to work. congress should extend these tax credits. congress should help our veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan by creating a veteran's job corps are men and women have served this country with honor. it is our turn to serve them. that is the to do list. now we need them to start crossing thing off. i need you to call your members of congress, write them and e- mails and let them know we cannot afford to wait any longer to get things done. this is the time to take steps we know will grow our economy and create jobs. >> the challenges people face

need to be addressed, not exploited for political gain. i want to know that our kids and grandkids will have greater opportunities than we do and that they prosperous america that we grow up then will still be there. that is why republicans are focused. we're focused on putting americans back to work for the plan for the job creators. in the house, we pass all the above energy bills. we passed the budget to lift the crushing burden of debt. it is threatening our future. we pass second business tax cuts. wicking a government out of the way. more than two dozen bills are waiting this and the democratic controlled senate.

this should be our focus. caller: it still amazes me that this is all they can come up with. they have to go back 50 years. they cannot find anything. what romney did, this book, i did vote for him. he states they left. he does not even remember high school. he went from high school to college. how did he get in that college? talk about a blank slate. we do not know where he has gotten where he has gotten. we don't know his grades. we do not know anything about this president of the them what his book told us. i reread it. i thought this is a bunch of bull.

host: which both? caller: i have both of them. i was impressed with him. in 1965, and that is when i graduated. i'm the present age. chris matthews was on this. we would use the word 0 you are meaning goofy. we did not know about gay people. i know mitt romney did not do that. they tried to turn this into bullying because he is gay. that is so far from the truth. they are going back 50 years.

that other guy a that did the game changer is, people can google it, it they said the press and not like mitt romney. they do not like that president bush -- that is why you'll see all the bad stories about president romney. the press is for romney. the what they did to hillary clinton. what is going to be the racist factor? that will be the next thing. to all you african americans, your unemployment rate is 16% under this "wonderful" man. news for you.

caller: good morning. i am glad you brought this to the forefront. i am not surprised from the republicans. it is indicative of the way they think and feel. i am the parent of a child that was bullied. all his school years in school i was forced to take him out in the third grade and sent into a private christian school for two years, paying for it out of my pockets. had i not been the kind of mother that understood these bullying children, it would have had lasting emotional scars for the rest of his life.

children who bully these cannot stick up for themselves. it is a sad situation. i am a nurse. i have studied psychology. took him to a psychologist for a year. between him and myself and my support a family, we were able to impress upon him and convince them that he is as good a person as everybody else. we were to them for years. i am so glad that you have discussed this subject. why the republicans did not

understand, i do not know. host: we are out of time for this segment. in the next, we will take up the view on same-t's sex. intelligence leaks this week as well in the news. robert will be our guest on that topic. i want to point you to our newsmakers program that takes place 10:00 on sunday. he talks about working towards energy dependence. this is what it takes to get things done. in this portion of the program, he talks about senator lugar's

loss and the primary. [video clip] >> see is a fine individual. but he is a good career serving the people of indiana. the new candidates, however it is, once they are elected by the people of their states and they come here, we've got to find ways to work together. that goes the rest of the whole spectrum, republican and did the correct. it is incumbent upon us. i see a said that he's not agree with a compromise. do you think that is an attitude that might involve? >> have you think the government should work on behalf of the

people? for those of us that are more conservative, we believe is to create an environment that crates entrepreneurship and small business across this country and empowers people. that is how it works best. want --people wha typically, people want more government involvement. we still have to find ways to work together. that doesn't of compromise. >> when you lose a veteran senator, are you losing institutional knowledge or that influence that really helped maintain this aura that surrounds the senate that has passed bills that have changed those gentry's? >> you always lose certain skill sets and talents. i worked with him very closely on keystone.

you also gain something from a new perspective. they bring the experience. host: that is "newsmakers." you can see him tomorrow, at 10:00 in the morning and 6:00 in the evening on c-span. we turn now to the president's decision this week and statements made in our interview regarding gay marriage. to get the context, a bit of interviews that we have gathered starting in 2008 and ending in the current day on what was said about a marriage. [video clip] >> marriage is a union between a man and a woman. >> with respect to the issue of

whether they should be able to get married, i've spoken about this recently. my feelings about this are constantly evolving. i struggle with this. >> i've vowed to keep up the fight against the defense of marriage act. there is a bill to repeal this discriminatory law. i want to see that past barrett until we reach that day, my administration is no longer defending. i believe it will counter the constitution. it is time for it to end once and for all. but at a certain point, i have concluded that for me personally it is important for that go ahead and a firffirm same-sex couples should be able to get married. host: welcome. what are your impressions of the transition from 2008 to the current day?

guest: it began prior to 2008 when he felt that the question air in 1996 when he was a little-known senate candidates for illinois. he wrote a questionnaire saying that he supported gay marriage. that question there disappeared for a while. the trees suffers -- it resurfaced years later. he supported civil unions. he did not support the marriage. when he ran for president. this question there has been interesting -- questionnaire is adjusting because the white house had to go back and say someone else told that out. that was an interesting response. then jay carney said actually my

other colleagues said someone else pulled it out was referring to a different question there. he still did not clarify if obama actually supporting gay marriage in 1996. if we're talking about evolution, it appears that he supported it in 1996 and then evolved to support only civil unions and then in this past week announced he did support same-sex marriage. host: what you think about the timing? guest: the timing was pretty clearly tied with joe biden going on "meet the press" in announcing that he is "absolutely comfortable" with the idea of to manner to women getting married. that there everybody for a late -- two men or two women getting

married. that threw everybody for a loop. when joe biden said that, and the alarms went off. the gay community was very excited se. they said what he meant is that his views are no different than president obama. we support equal rights for all people. they tried to make it a broader endorsements. it was getting to the point where it was just offered for the president to keep saying he has been an evolving one not only does the vice president come out and say he was comfortable with this but the next day, arne duncan was asked on a morning talk show how he felt and he said he supported it, too. it started getting even where for the president. redo weirder -- weirder for the president. i think he had been planning to announce it. he said i was going to make an

announcement on this. we're going to do it sometime before the democratic convention in september. now we're going to go ahead and do it. now they're pretty much forced to do it. joe biden came out and said what he actually felt. now we're going to go ahead and say it. that is what played out. host: is there a clear line of who it tracks and he pushes away? guest: people who are the support the president, his supporters, are happy that he has finally endorsed this. the gay community is very happy. the youth vote is going to surge because of this. host: african-american community? guest: there is some risk of their and among black clergymen.

in certain communities come at a may release support the president but the issue of gay marriage is not something -- in certain communities, they may really support the president but the issue of gay marriage is not something they support. then there are the independents who can go either way. some may have liked him up to this point and now are not comfortable. it may make them think twice. at the end of the day, this is not going to make or break many people's decision on the president. i think people are more focused on jobs in the economy. we're still in a recession. people are not so concerned about who is going to marry who win their picking who they're going to vote for if they do not have a job. is that really on the same level as to people wanting to get married? it is a good talking point. it is huge from the historic

standpoint that the president has endorsed this. it has many implications. it does not seem as this would sway so many voters to significantly impact a november election. host: could it casts social issues into this election? guest: absolutely. this issue is not up for the taking. mitt romney is weighing in on this issue when he has not tested before. he has maintained that he supports mayors between one man and 11 in. each region of between -- he has maintained that he supports marriage between one man and one woman. this will come up. it is huge in the news right now. it is historic.

guest: and the firing of a spokesperson. host: mitt romney let go one of his spokespeople who was gay in the face of criticism from conservatives who were not happy with potential republican president having a case spokesman. -- having a gay spokesman. a lot of things are happening at once. when joe biden came out, that pretty much forced the president's hand on this which has now forced this issue into a much bigger spotlight. host: do you see it subsiding a bit? guest: people are going to look at this. they will slice and dice of the political implications it will have nastily and swing states like north carolina were they

just passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage. this could easily go republican again. in michigan where republicans don't support a marriage. this of the talked about until november. i do not think it means that iit to affect the votes. we have to watch. host: she can take your questions on one of three lines. host: wenonah, minnesota is up first for jennifer bendery, "huffington post."

alex. caller: good morning. when i was going to school, if you did not know the meaning of something, the teacher would tell you go look it up in the dictionary. nobody has bothered to meet the -- read the dictionary. mary -- joined s husband as -- joined as husband or wife and marriages the state of being married, the act of marion. if you want to look up husband, it says it is a man married to a woman, and if you look up wife, it says that it is a woman married to a man. now, are we going to rewrite the dictionary? why do we not end this silly

conversation and get on with the problems that we have? host: first of all, let's talk about that when he was doing, -- what he was doing, definitions. guest: yes, if you look up marriage in the dictionary it might say something between a husband and wife, a man and a woman what is notable here is that things change. sometimes people will try to compare the same-sex marriage conversation to the interracial marriage debate. if you want to go back 40, 50 years, there are some ways that are compatible in what is viewed as socially acceptable. it will be interesting to see how this plays out because the concept of marriage is

something the gay community is trying to reinforce it is not gay marriage. it is marriage. it is something that as a culture is about two people loving each other. it is about equality and fairness. it will be interesting to see how the concept is discussed in the political sphere with president obama and mitt romney. host: colorado. heather, republican line. caller: this is bernie, new york city. i would like to ask the young lady why she thinks this move will excite young people. i can understand exciting young homosexuals, but why would motivate young heterosexuals? thank you.

guest: sure. behink the youth vote will influential on the issue of gay marriage because statistically we see higher percentages of younger people who generally support same-sex marriage and gay rights in general. eight tracks with general patterns were younger generations are more open- minded, and a good example is president obama when he said he was evolving on the issue and when he made this decision one of the examples he gave was sitting around the dinner table michele obama and his daughter's and how they talked casually about how their friends' parents were same-sex couples and it was normal for them the president commented in

his interview -- for them. the president commentated about how it was interesting to watch this and it was not a big deal, and how it was different generational from where he is and people in his age bracket are. i think that demonstrates why younger voters are going to be by and large more supportive of something like this issue. it does not mean everybody well, but statistically younger people are more open-minded and more open to same-sex marriage. host: 8 twitter comment. guest: the reality is we do not have a federal law justify in marriage for same-sex couples, so we have state laws.

that weresident's point have state laws that laid out what the state wants, in the meantime you have to recognize state rights. there are some people that support same-sex marriage that are not happy with the point that states have the right to make their own decision, but on the other side of that, the president has to acknowledge that states have their rights currently to recognize if the vote to ban same-sex marriage or make it legal. the states have passed these lots to do that. there is no federal law tromping all of that. host: there were about 31 accounts on state ballots to get same-sex marriage all turned down, but you have statistics like the gallup poll of national

adults with 51% approving and 45% disapproving. guest: there is an interesting split. many polls have shown 50%, 49%, 52% in support of same-sex marriage consistently in the last year or so, however in individual states the numbers are different. as we saw in north carolina bay overwhelmingly passed a measure to ban same-sex marriage three constitutional amendment, which is as high as it to go. nationally, you will see -- it could go. nationally, you'll see different numbers. it will be interesting to see how those states play into the election president obama

endorsing this issue and mitt romney will have to weigh on this more. the issue will be in the forefront in these key states. host: our guest, jennifer bendery of "huffington post." oregon. independent line. caller: i think it is another election year stunt. joe biden it is playing his usual role of a buffoon who shoots his mouth off and gives obama the right to make his political move. on the issue of gay marriage, it is interesting that you have your polls, and even in a state heavily infected with goofballs like california, when it comes

to a vote, and nobody seems to like gay marriage. i remember when the gay community was declaring loudly they had no one agenda, now there seems to be a big agenda to force their marriages. civil unions are not good enough. they have to have the word marriage. i think they want to equate themselves with traditional heterosexual marriages and say it is the law, you cannot distinguish ourselves from us. also, i think ultimately there end game is to force everyone to publicly endorse, approve of, and joining in on their lifestyle, and by that i mean to publicly approve of them. there was an interesting show i think on nbc that has that "what

would you do" program and a set up a situation where a gay couple in a public restaurant, a guy was proposing to his boyfriend, and everybody was approving, and they had a post or something. one fellow did not join in and they pushed him and he said he did not approve, and ultimately they told them he was a scum bag and he should leave. host: thank you. guest: at think to this caller's point, i think she is correct that the push by the gay and lesbian community is to have the word marriage. i do not think what they are doing is trying to say that everyone should join in and some -- jump onto a agenda or something. i think what they're trying to

do is say marriage is about two people who love each other and want equal rights. one thing that gets overlooked are the rights that come with being married. one key difference between marriages and civil unions is there are 1200 or 1300 legal rights that come with federal marriage, marriage as we now today. the civil union is kind of piecemeal. you get some of them. some you do not. on the one hand, it is a rights issue -- the number of rights people are pushing to say we deserve them, too. on the other hand, if you do not use the word marriage, the argument is separate but equal and do we want to return to that system? this hearkens back to the woman's movement, jim crow laws,

and such. i think the push for gay marriages is bigger than just trying to push people into something. it is wanting to be considered equal with other people who love each other. host: to the point about proposition 8, others have reported it could head to the supreme court and there is a story that a judge questioned if the supreme court would take a dawn appeared -- take it on. guest: the issue ultimately will be decided by the supreme court. that is what everyone believes. congress is watching quietly, hoping the supreme court will do something. the president believes this is a supreme court issued. in the meantime, the president will support this issue. people will be issuing statements and taking smaller level votes that effect the issue to put their views out

there. ultimately, this is something expected to go to the supreme court and all eyes are watching what they're going to do with this. host: jennifer bendery of "huffington post" joins us. mitt romney addressed same-sex marriage in oklahoma. [video clip] >> i have the same view that i have expressed many times -- marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. states are able to make decisions with regards to a domestic partnership benefits like hospital visitation. my view is marriages a relationship between a man and a woman and that is my own preference. other people have different views. it is a tender and sensitive topic, as are many social issues, but i have the same view that i have had since

running for office. host: chris, -- houston, texas. democrat line. caller: i get -- i agree that this is a big stunt. this is as transparent as it gets including this going back to mitt romney bullying and anti-gay. this is typical media. there is the issue about how african-americans feel about gay marriage, and only 39% support it according to a poll. the majority is against gay marriage. my question is are they anti- gay? are they homophobic? guest: i think the black community is going to be interesting to watch to see how

they respond to president obama's endorsement of this. the real question is really to the wall parts. will we see black leaders come out and say they support the president and his endorsement of same-sex marriage, or will we see the black community that is largely supportive of the president be willing to overlook this? that is something that remains to be seen. i think between now and november a lot of eyes will be on leaders in the black and hispanic communities because they are typically big supporters of the president. host: eric. good morning. buter: high can't help address the last two caller

spirited the stuff about an agenda and an attempt to reach it to -- two callers. the stuff about an agenda, it does not pass the test, and using the black community, it is not appropriate as a litmus test but it is always used. it will not be meaningful change. president obama's endorsement -- unfortunately politicians did the lead -- do not lead, they focused -- follow. all other stories like inter racial marriage, that comes from people and politicians catch up. it will only come when people reach critical mass and incest. the abysmal role of leadership in this country from either side is ineffective at best.

unfortunately, that is how it is. all you have to do is look back, and this is speaking as a libertarian, to a president like fdr, nt -- and he entertained all-comers. economic policies, were tisch's, infrastructure, -- work issues, and the structure, public works -- he said it is a good idea, talk to the public, and force me to do that. without that you will not see it in state houses. host: the public been the determining factor? guest: i think that is a very true factor. on this issue it will be interesting because the public

does tend to lead where things go on same-sex marriage and gay- rights in general. with polls showing at least half of the country, maybe slightly more support same-sex marriage in pulling from the last six months-to-one here -- 1-year and the president endorsing it, and mitt romney been forced to talk about an issue he did not want to talk about very much, all of this will be in the context of the election, for better or for worse. their reaction to the president's endorsement of -- if the reaction to the president's endorsement of same-sex marriage is strong, that will play out for many months. everything happening in

washington is about the election. what the public says and does will be key in the coming months. host: mason, durham, north carolina. republican line. caller: is madison. that is okay. i am an african-american, and i have to tell you that my religion plays a huge role in the vote that i cast this past week and as far as the black community, if you look at registration for blacks, it is way down. the turnout will not be as strong for president obama at all. as far as the concept of marriage, we believe -- i am

more of a tea party person -- we believe it is more about church and state saying because the concept came up of the church, the concept of marriage, we are not only saying no to gay marriage, but also saying no to polygamy, bigamists. you could open a pandora's box. the triad marriage association wants to push for a change. we are not taking on one group of people if that is how you want to see it. there are a lot of other people that have different definitions. that is not good for the people. as far as polls, in north carolina it was very tight before the vote, but what people say and then what they do in the

voting booth is different. the question i have for the guest, is the dnc , which is having it in north carolina, surprisingly, what are your thoughts that they refuse to have the -- have same-sex marriage on their platform. host: before you leave, can i ask two questions? did your church actively talk above or participate things leading up to the ballot vote tuesday? caller: now, this is something i have in my bible. host: will your church react formally as far as the president's announcement this test week? -- announcement this past week? caller: he will probably lose

african american voters. host: will your church address this sunday? caller: we do not talk politics. host: jennifer bendery. guest: many democrats have been pushing to have same-sex marriage in their platform. since president obama endorsed, it is a matter of time before debbie wasserman schultz, joe biden, others throw their support behind the issue. the timing of the way it happened and the way it played out starting with joe biden's comments left sunday has sped up something that would happen

anyway. host: this statement from abc news. host: after contortions in the administration, he does not deserve praise. it comes one day late, and $1 short. guest: there are prominent conservatives then have supported gay marriage, former vice president dick cheney being one of them. a former republican leader who

came out as a gay man and led the effort to put same-sex marriage on the state ballot to drive republican voters to the polls is now fighting to make same-sex marriage a reality. certainly, conservatives have endorsed this issue. the thinking is it is a conservative issue, keeping the government out of our private lives and letting people live the way they want to live. if it is acceptable socially, and polls show it is becoming more acceptable. host: democrat line. chicago. caller: is this the happenstance of joe biden doing what he did, or the president's supporting the same decision?

the president has been appealing to the groups he is going to need for a successful campaign. he has gone to college campuses, talking to students and what not. he is going to have to have them be willing to volunteer. that is part of a successful campaign. this gay marriage thing, when joe biden made his comments in the shadow of the north carolina resolution it was not just about gay marriage. i think also the president is speaking to some gay people who see the writing on the wall as far as republicans are concerned is that their future

lifestyle is under attack and these are people that might be interested even though they are republican of supporting the president'. i think some of this is being missed in the evaluation of just what this is. them, the log cabin republicans, i thought they had vanished almost. this is the first i've heard from a long -- log cabin republicans in more than two years. guest: they certainly have surfaced on this issue. you make a good point that you might see some republicans in the pentagon how mitt romney plays this issue, -- depending on how mitt romney plays this issue that might be turned off on positions mitt romney takes

on gay issues in the coming months because there are some republicans that support gay- rights. if mitt romney decides to take this issue, and we are in the early stages of seeing how they handle this, it will be interesting to see how it will be framed of the campaign trail because he could turn off republican voters who might be more inclined to vote for president obama because they do not like the way he is talking about issues that appear discriminatory to other people. host: let me pull you away from this story from a -- to a subject you posted yesterday about the filibuster rule. what happened yesterday? guest: thursday night, the senate majority leader henry reed went on to the senate floor and ranted about how it is time

to -- harry reid went on to the senate floor and ranted about how it was time to reform the filibuster, angry a simple bill that would have passed with little fanfare in past years was said no to by republicans who want to add amendments. harry reid then complained about the filibuster rule which requires 60 votes to basically move the bill forward to them vote on it with a simple majority. so, the issue of a filibuster has been something that has been long-decided by people who are in the majority that can not get over the 60-vote threshold. it is something that both parties have used to their advantage to delay action on

bills. it is something both parties have complained about the other party of using. what harry reid said it is i cannot believe the republicans are trying to hold up a bill that is not controversial, and they're only doing this to be obstructionist, and it is time to reform the filibuster rule so we do not have this straight requirement. host: what is his plan to make the change? guest: there was a senior democratic aide that i spoke to in the senate who said harry reid is looking at next january as a window to change the rule on how they used a filibuster in the senate before congress goes into session. there will be a brief window where rules are made that dictate how the rules will be

for the next two years and there was a suggestion that harry reid might want to use that small window to rework the way the filibuster rule is used in an effort to prevent the minority from using it, forcing a delay on it. host: that is assuming -- assuming the senate stays in democratic control, what is a likeness of this happening? guest: there has long been complaints, but it will be tricky to make changes. the main complaint is the minority party is abusing it. both parties will be in the minority at some point. you do not want to do something to limit the power of the minority when you will become the minority and potentially need some kind of told to do something to prevent the other party from steamrolling everything through.

host: s.i., new york. capt. -- catherine. independent line. caller: i want to know how you define marriage between homosexuals. marriages between man and woman and they create this world. what do they create? can you explain that to me and everybody else? president obama has come up now with this because he wants to distract people from the real facts that we are drowning in debt and corruption and nobody does nothing, ok? i think this has to stop and go on to other stuff. host: even less met house majority leader john boehner said he would focus on this -- on the economy and less on this issue. guest: right. for all of the talk on how this

will play out, this just happened. this is not going to be ultimately what drives people, you know, in their decisions, i think is fair to say. to your point, house speaker john boehner, you can ask him one question after another on the issue, and at least right now he is saying i'm focused on the economy, i am focused on the economy, but to the question, i think the message as to how i would define marriage or the gay community would define marriage, i think the message a rights advocates are making is their ability to get married would not have any effect on other people's marriages. it is not like two people getting married over here will effect the rights or the

sanctity of someone else's personal relationship. that is the definition of marriage you will start hearing more about. what same-sex couples want to do has nothing to do with hurting or taken away from heterosexual couples being married. to your point, absolutely, the economy is what you will see people want to talk about more, and voters will want to know how to get a job. host: jennifer bendery is a political reporter from "huffington post." how often do you post? guest: of few times a day. host: thank you for your time. coming up, the federal investigation into leaked information, connected with the al qaeda plot that surfaced last week. later on, if you are a high-

school student studying for the ap government test next week, we will talk to experts on how to prepare for the exam. we will be right back. >> coming back in an age where crime is global in ways that it was not 10 years ago and by that i mean whether it is organized crime, cyber crime, white-collar crime, gangs, they are globalized and the entity that has the best chance to address

globalized criminal activity is the fbi. consequently, if you cut us from doing it at a point in time where it is globalized, it is a double hit in some sense >> wednesday, the fbi director testified. you can watch it on mine at the c-span and video library. it is one of many hearings we covered this week. cspan.org/videolibrary. >> these men go through things, had scars that no one can understand except each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, who were different men that formed this alliance and neither

of them would have anticipated, and was a productive and formed the foundation of a very deep friendship. the letters between them are really extraordinary. >> it might be the most exclusive club in the world. the relationships of presidents sunday, "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: robert liscouski joins us on the discussion of weeks. welcome. in connection with feet al qaeda plot, there was a sub plot

concerning the leaks. could you explain what the concern is? guest: when the story broke, it was early in the cycle in terms of the operation. generally speaking, when you have these operations going on, they are sensitive in nature. the government is concerned about the nature of the week, who leaked the information, and what the intent was. host: this goes to the underwear bombing last week. guest: exactly. it was very timely. the information was circulating extremely fast, and the news was breaking as the operation was unfolding. so, that causes concern to our allies because we are leaking

information they would not want to have out there. host: what information was leaked? guest: i did not have firsthand knowledge, but i will speculate that if you read the press and look at what is going on, clearly operational details, how close we were to the operation itself, not kids to inform -- methods to infiltrate, who participated, and the details of the potential attack itself leaking out. these are things people would have preferred to do in a much more measured way. host: is there an organization responsible? guest: that is a good question and it is the focus of the investigation. host: from your previous experience, what are some of the sources on the u.s. side that possibly could have produced the week?

guest: speculating, if he looked the way it is characterized, it was closely-held, and the knowledge of the assets being close had to be held closely for this concern. for those in the intelligence community, they will have had access to it. i'm not pointing fingers. the fbi and what head excess. they were brought in immediately. they might have had some operational involvement in the operation itself clearly, in any investigation, those closest are the first ones you look at. then you begin to widen it out. the media has great access in the united states. it is one of the great strengths of the constitution.

the media has access. relationships are very close between the government and the media, and regrettably, and sometimes they are abused. host: the damage with the leak only happened with this incident, or is there a ripple effect? guest: clearly, there is a ripple effect. some in the intelligence community to refer this would have been hidden because there are insufficient -- investigations ongoing. we do not know what the timing was on this event, who would have been involved, what other plots but have been spun off. so, the more time we would've had to keep this under wraps and duty investigation the way they were intended to play out, they were that the more secure for the united states host: of the

informant's identity has not been revealed? guest: as far as i know, not in the public media. we will talk about the intelligence weeks with our guest. you can call one of three lines. host: what is built in to keep weeks from happening? guest: there are a series of mechanisms, and first is a trusted the people working with you. people are vetted. our classification system allows for operations like this to be

held closely. on the procedural side, there are tactical security things. all those are typically retain, but detailed processes are put in place. when you look at the people participate, the vetting process is, they will allow people to have trusted access and it is part of a system. the one failing is human nature. host: does the level of security exist at all levels? guest: at a compartment of level, there might be different protocols. the respective compartments that go beyond that our agency-

specific, but they're very specific guidelines. host: for those that give information to the press, how does that happen and how was that not found on? -- find out? guest: public affairs offices are in theory responsible to make sure of private information is given, then you have all of these off-the-record sources but speak as a trusted source. in terms of the history of the united states there is always a need, but there has clearly always been a mechanism and an environment in which off-the- record conversations are had to inform the media. you want a well-informed media. you do not want them speculating

in a way that would harm things. it's a difficult balance to achieve. some did not know how to handle the balance, and as a consequence, they spoke beyond the reasons of those boundaries and not with the authorization of the agencies they represent. there is a well-defined process with all these agencies. host: if a leak is found, how does the department handle that? guest: they can be prosecuted. if they are giving up classified information, it is a serious charge. there are reasons the information is classified. there is a definition in terms of what is secret and top secret, and it is extremely grave, grave danger. it is a big charge. we take that seriously. i'm not in the government any

more, but when i was in the government we took it very seriously. host: how does this administration approach weeks? guest: i cannot speak for them in terms of policy, but as a matter of law, i imagine they take it seriously. there are no politics around enforcing the law. i'm sure they will investigate this to the fullest extent of the law. host: when you were in the department implements security, how did the bush admit -- department of homeland security, how did the bush a administration treat it? guest: again, i do not think there is a political dynamic. to how confirmation is treated, that does go from -- to how information is treated, that goes from administration-to-the

the nutrition, -- administration-to- administration, but it is telling to be involved in investigations because you see the true nature of what is at stake and the seriousness in which the people should be treating information, but are very cavalier in how they are doing that. host: rakowski is our guest. gilbert. are you there? dan, des moines, iowa. republican line. caller: it all revolves around one key aspect. host: we are having a little bit of a problem.

talk a little bit about as far as information is concerned -- who handles it from the time it is gathered on the field to the point where it is at an agency? what is the number of people involved? guest: depends on the operation. something as closely held as this operation, i think the handlers will be case officers, assuming this was a cia investigation. the case officers will do a field report that it's filed, and there is a distinct protocol. there is security around that communication, and the way information is passed along through secured channels is strictly governed. sometimes operational needs do not allow you to follow those protocols. sometimes the information gets outside of normal channels, and

we think we are being careful about how we do that, and regrettably sometimes it is intercepted. so, there are strict protocols, and like every protocol and battle plan they tend to fall apart in the heat of the operation or the battle. host: from twitter . guest: i do not believe that is the case. there is they want to know, and the need to tell. i'm not being critical of the media, but the average person has more information available to them today than in -- than any time in history. when you can have life accounts of events going on from people that are sitting watching an event, taking video, reporting

-- the average public has a real time information available to them extremely well-informed. there is always a back side -- ? story. -- a bad story. that is typically what the average public does not have. we design that. as a consequence, we confuse the need and our desire. the average citizen has the right to know certain things, and there are certain things they do not need to know and should not now reaching the methods we use, the sources we years -- when -- the methods we use, the sources we use --

sometimes you respond to that as opposed to be activity you are engaged in. it skews perspectives. we live in a first amendment- driven society, and i'm thankful for that, but the end of the day when you are in the investigative whirled you prefer to have more control of information not to hide things, but because you did not know yourself what is going on. host: to that point, why worry about leaks after the action if you have nothing to hide? guest: this is not a question of wrongdoing. it is a question of operational needs. they need secrecy to keep americans safe because adversaries are good at running operations against the. did not forget, people's lives

are at stake -- against us. do not forget, people's lives are at risk. this is not a novel. you put yourself in harm's way. you are trusting information about your life. it is one way -- one thing you -- when you do that in an operational environment and you say all may i know so if i break the code it is on me, but when you have 25 other people knowing what you are doing, and one of those folks can lead inadvertently that you are doing something at the precise moment the you are doing it with people that were just as likely be had you s look at -- behead you as

look at you -- that an enemy, insurance -- and amenity, insurance to you have to trust, it takes a system to make sure you can deliver. i've never been an intelligence operative. i've worked undercover. at the end of the day, when people get killed, if you are an informant, or an undercover officer, it is still the same. you deal with it immediately. it is difficult to know the people you are working with you cannot trust. you cannot trust the informants, and generally. their motivation is different, but they have inside information. it is complex. it is a very basic thing. if you did not have the trust, you will be on willing to take the risk. host: this is robert liscouski.

i want to get your thoughts on robert mueller testified before congress, specifically about fisa, the foreign intelligence surveillance act. i want to listen and give your reaction. [video clip] >> well, mr. chairman, we have seen over the last several days, but it really with regard to the ied tech recently recovered that terrorism continues to be our number one priority and the number one priority of a number of our intelligence agencies. the amendments that are up for passage again are absolutely essential in our efforts to address this threat. it is not only us. the fbi -- the access to the intermission that enables us to give identify persons --

information that enables us to identify persons within the united states and outside the united states that would hurt us, and also the intelligence agencies said that we can put together the information we need to prevent attacks. it is essential. host: mr. liscouski? guest: mr. robert mueller is at the lee correct. -- is absolutely correct. i was a consumer of disinformation. i respect my colleagues in the intelligence committee. i have to take the information they produce and put that to work. from my point of view as the person responsible for investor to protection in the united states, and this is a big statement, there were a lot of people it did this work, but i had per view as it related to

construction -- targets, nuclear power plants, public safety systems, sporting events -- when you look at the enormity of the responsibility and how we have to protect this nation against threats and you look a target- specific protection, use any analogy you like that when you try to put up defenses, you cannot protect against anything -- everything. you need to be driven by intelligence. the intelligence we have in the field is critical for us. if we dilute and take away the capability to gain access to that information, this country cannot afford at a budget level or a political level to cut things we need to protect. it is about sustainability.

if you look at terrorism over the last 30 years, it does become a heightened american concern, and has only gotten worse. historically, terrorism and its former level was directed against our foreign embassies, private sector businesses outside the jurisdiction of the united states. there were few attacks inside the united states, but that has changed, and the attacks are coming fast and furious and we're still managing debt. the good news is they are stopping a lot of them because the intelligence apparatus is intersecting and mitigating the before they hit our border. it is critical that we do that. if we stop a terrorist act within our borders, it becomes

difficult. once people have blood into the society, freedom of movement -- blended into the society, freedom of movement is great, so it is a lot easier for us to interject before the terrorist operation finds its way to the shores. we have enough to worry about domestically. host: arizona. michael, independent line. caller: i have a statement and two questions. the statement is the patriot act is an oxymoron. it is ridiculous i looked up the -- it is ridiculous. i look up the nsa and there is no number to be found? what is that thing in utah? to collect information and use it against us later?

guest: i understand concerned above collecting information central to the concern people have about privacy. i will not comment about any facilities. that is not my realm. in terms of what people read in the public about the ability of the government to collect data and use it against the common citizen, people take their responsibility serious about repairs -- respecting civil liberties. enforcement officers understand the balance of what they're looking for is not to use this against the common citizen for bad means. a lot of information is collected, but i would argue that the average consumer gives up more information on a day- trip to a grocery store than they ever will give to the united states government, and

they do that willingly. the shop with their credit cards, use their loyalty cards every single time they checkout ave grocery store -- of a grocery store. large box companies have camera systems to identify buying habits so they can make sure product placement is in the right place on the shelf to increase sales. that is a lot of data about an individual, far more than the government will collect on anybody. host: connecticut. stephanie, democrat line. caller: i have a question about what the practical impact would be after this latest threat event on the regular traveler -- going through airports, moving around for security purposes, how will the government balance

this new threat going forward? guest: that is a great question. it speaks to the whole point of why we are collecting this intelligence to begin with. tsa is doing a great job. we all have good experiences and sometimes bad experiences with the problem of going through the line. the average person understands the threat at some level that officers are checking for -- explosives or weapons that might be in their bags. what they do not know is really what is driving the threat and what is driving people to get concerned about that, and why we have to take those extraordinary measures. i would like to tell you we have the 100% covered, but we do not. we are still working to put more technology and better process is in place at thetsa -- tsa

lines. 3 go to the front-end of the discussion and what generates the concern, and the to the evolution and looking at al-s o. at the pentagon, they attacked the twin towers. those were weapons. the goal was to hijacking aircraft to use as a weapon. we have evolved. we hard in consequences. we a button-down the ability to bring weapons on the plane. that evolution, our tactical evolution to their tactics, allow them to be able to migrate into a different tactic. not a new tactic by any stretch of the imagination but one which clearly is an insidious threat and the ubiquitous threat in terms of the types of materials that can be used. al qaeda continues to adjust tactics to our defensive measures and we have to adjust

our defensive measures to their tactics. the caller's point -- when going through the line, you have seen things being done differently. this is a bad day on behalf of the tsa. when they are going through your bag thoroughly, they might have to be looking for something because the threat stream is telling us that the tactics have changed and the need to look at things more differently than they are. the process is an evolutionary process. it is not set in stone that says we will always check people borrowing through -- going through metal detectors and nothing else. after the christmas bombing attempt, we had to adapt our technologies. the challenge we have, and this is the biggest question, when we fis we fisa and -- when we talk fisa and bombing

attacks, they have the ability to adapt more quickly. technology evolves. i mean, right now we are taking an e-mail, twitter, people calling in. three of those mechanisms of communication alone. if you add to the other dynamics of dynamicsand out of bluetooto intercepted communications as dynamically as the adversaries can use them against us. host: i deleted the technologies? guest: you decide. if you see something in "wired magazine" -- terrorist to the same thing.

we need to put the technology to use. let us focus on that for a moment. if you look at the supply chain of technology coming into the intelligence community and how we have to adapt that, how did you do it? you have to test it. exploited. procuress. if you look at tsa alone, they do not have the record procurement capability that the dod has. contrast that with afghanistan and how quickly the dod able to push technology -- to put technology on the front line. the entire force protection approach, try to put the best technology out there to protect people if they could. the beginning was bloody, right? ied's were taking a big toll. by the end of the war, our ability to really protect our personnel -- technology could be adapted tquickly.

i will talk from my personal experience as well as what i understand goes on currently. procurement cycles do not allow the rapid adaptation of technology. by the time and rfp goes out asking for the technology, it is out of date. policies get vetted and funded and implemented. if you are talking two years down the road. look at that twitter. the average -- with the use of twitter and other social media, it everything is phenomenal. that technology can be implemented and people can communicate, they had spots going on and the internet. they were doing all sorts of things we cannot begin to think about doing because he could not adapt quickly. when adversaries can do that, that fast and we are still

thinking about how to formulate the rfp and have the process goes forward, we will always be behind. host: this is twitter -- guest: if it was political motivated, i hope that comes out and those people executed. -- those people are prosecuted. i cannot believe in the administration, democrat, republican, i do not care, you were absolutely, you know, your responsibility -- you are responsible for the nation. i have never seen people act that way. host: new york. rick on our republican. caller: good morning. i was watching a couple of things on c-span with mr. bout the original bomber. he was ordered to be on the plane even though he was drugged out and incoherent.

he let the man on the play with no identification. mr. kennedy, i watched on c- span, he said yes. he was ordered to get the man on the plane. they had no identification. they had these naked body scanners in order. the dangers of a false light terrorist event is more dangerous than giving up our rights for bogeymen. now the ca catches itself -- host: do you have a question? caller: what can you say about the case with him being let on the plane without identification? they already have these naked body scanners on order before this even happened. host: thank you. guest: i cannot speak to the no identification aspect of the aircraft. i was unaware of that. i cannot comment about it. i think, you know, let me kind

of race of the issue a little bit in terms of what i think i can draw from what the caller was asking about. when you get on the aircraft, coming from a third world country, you know, the standards of travel are not uniform. by that i mean, our u.s. standards do not apply. countries have their own sovereignty. the best we can do is use airline associations and other conventions we have to try to get standard propagated throughout the world that conform to what we think are good security standards. but, you know, those standards, even in themselves, are administered by people in countries that we do not have control over. we cannot set the standard of the average individual revealing a document for an individual to get on an aircraft. as i said earlier on, these are

systems. the single point of failure on any system is a human being. you know, let us took a look at what went on in l.a. two weeks ago. in which four tsa officers were arrested for taking bribes to allow drug smugglers to get through securities. right? that is a dire said jubilation as it relates to the for realty of our security system. -host: does that mean baalke is a is that? guest: absolutely not. -- host: does that mean all tsa is that? guest: absolutely not. you have to look at the system that we have here. it will never be 100%. and, we need a lawyer security approach. that is what we are doing.

you want to put your security parameters as far out from your targets that you possibly can. at that first line of defense, that is our capacity to be able to detect and deter interject and event before it occurs. that is the best form of protected you can possibly get. you have to understand that you will not get that all the time. you have to continually build these lawyers and they will get more and more stringent in severe the closer you get to the target. so, you know, these processes cannot exist independently. we need a strong independence -- and its strong technology and intelligence teams. i am sure everybody watching this show -- terrorism have to be right ones. we have to be right 100% of the time.

that is an incredible ought to be able to the right to all the time. you know, we have to do the best we can and use every available mechanism. host: paul on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i am not buying what you are saying. afghanistan is one of the most poor countries on earth. if you need to tell me we are wasting all this money we did you mean to tell me we are wasting all this money on al qaeda be. -- if you need to tell me we are wasting all this money on al qaeda. i do not believe they exist. based training that shows -- that is supposed to scare me? this is a business. terrorism is a business. it is a lifestyle of the rich and famous. you just happen to be one of the name was one out there. i am afraid our government. guest: i suspect the collar's sentiment is felt at a lot of

different levels. you know, let us assume al qaeda did not exist for a moment. our problem does not go away. there are plenty of terrorist groups out there, even if we are able to contain and eliminate al qaeda. this is not a new phenomenon. it is an old one, part of what is going on. criminal groups. we have a tendency of looking at terrorism as being this thing we should be guarding against. you know, i was a cop 30 years ago. crime has not gone down in the past 30 years. irrespective of terrorism, if he took it out of the equation, crime statistics -- there is no crime that is not associated with terrorism. if you look at assaults and everything going on in the u.s., if you took every foreign terrorist group out of this, we would not have the crime grrate

we've had today. people have to appreciate the quality of life they have in this country is because we have a good safety system. we have good law enforcement officers. good systems that do that. it has to be balanced with the constitution. there is not an officer that trains that does not learn about the balance of the constitution and what that individual's rights are. things are always going to happen. right? there will always be abuses. regrettable, but it goes back to a human nature. but, you know, it is a tough world out there. and, you know, the average individual is lucky if they never come in contact with crime or if they never come in contact with law enforcement agencies reporting a crime or one of their loved ones is killed. that is a tough thing to do. you will get their lives and drug dealing and the migration of mexican gangs here in the u.s., the transnational crime

that represent in terms of the impact on the inner cities and elsewhere in the u.s., drug- trafficking going on, violence of gangs, you know, we should be focusing on that as much as we are host: on al qaeda wisconsin, mike on the independent line. caller: good morning. i will try to say this to make sense. it seems to me that others' problem -- it is siri complex in the middle of the complexity. it seems to me there was a leak and someone they leaked to. during and before 9/11, there were reports to the fbi that were not taken seriously. there was a famous person who ran as an independent for president to said, if you want to know your company, as the janitor. we take things for granted.

it is may be very complex, but maybe we are looking at it to intelligently. un intelligence is the way they are getting in. obviously, there is a week in the fbi. there is a leak in the media. guest: 3-9/11, if you look at the report, you know, we did a horrible job that information sharing. it is not a question of leaking, it was a question of not sharing. one for some agencies -- law- enforcement agencies, the information sharing was dismal. that did lead to the 9-11 theory of and that was a failure. that was a horrible thing to have to live for.

to understand that that information could have been passed and we could have prevented that. there's not anyone who does not believe and you responsibility that there could have done better. people today, and 10 years after 9/11, they are is keenly motivated to make sure they are doing the right thing to share the right information. i would not get too focused on the leak. they will find out who did it and prosecute the individual. we will put an end to it. it will happen again in the future. we have to focus on the horror of people who are trying to do the work. if there is a lack of understanding, we cannot over think this problem. you know, we can not get too sophisticated about things thinking that we can quarterback its. we have to remember that there are people who want to destroy the way we live. they want to do it. i do not want to give that up. i do not want to give up the freedoms but i do not want to have people who are so worried

they do not want to go to a football game or a stadium or go shopping because they are afraid someone will attack them. that is the type of fear we cannot live with. host: robert liscouski, thank you for your time. if you are a student and you are spending this began studying for the ap government exams, you are in luck because in our final 45 minutes, two experts join you to help you with studying. they join us next for the annual cram for the exam that will come up right after this.

>> i thought it was important to write a book that took people to detect movement seriously. how did obama build over time? he did not come out of nothing. also, the tea party movement. how did it work? occupy wall street. those were important things to take seriously, to look at them as social movements. we the people perspective. >> former white house adviser van jones on social movement in america today. tonight at 10:00 p.m. on "book tv." also, we contend that the modern liberalism is flawed and has no issues for today. in a "the death of liberalism."

part of "book tv close with this weekend on c-span2. >> i had my ambition to walker a pocahontas walked. i got to do that. this is a rectangle space. pocahontas married john rolfe in this church in 1614. so, i guarantee you i am standing exactly a little deeper than she was, but this was where pocahontas stood. >> later today, to were the jamestown colony dig with project director william kelso. the county has yielded more than 1.5 million artifacts. this starts at 1:30 p.m. eastern. this is the rediscovery laboratory at 2:00 p.m. and join the conversation with william kelso like that to 30 p.m. eastern. this is on c-span3. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: a portion of america stuttering for this exam will be thankful to see this teacher on the screen. also joining us this morning is a teacher at the same school. the reason they're here is for the cram for the exam, the ap exam which takes place when? guest: tuesday may 15 the. host: for students facing the exam, what will they be facing? guest: 60 multiple choice questions and 45 -- in 44 of minutes followed by four as the questions. host: what is the point? guest: the point of the exam is to be a good psittacism but to test your partisanship, your ability to think as a citizen and to write as a citizen. you get college credit if you pass it. host: what are the topics? guest: there is a conceptual

separation of power, federalism, the 3 inches of government, public opinion, political socialization. host: here is a sample question. especially for those of you who are studying. this is an american political parties. the question is -- which is the most accurate? host: there is a lot out there. what is the most accurate? guest: democracy is unthinkable without political parties but

the constitution says nothing about it. our democracy -- political parties today are the fundamental linkage institution that can next week the people with the government. host: are these types of questions the types that students will see? guest: yes. i know we have a question -- students on the line. we are looking forward to enter their questions. host: how a bill becomes law will be part of the tests. students, if you want to participate, we have set up the line for high school students only. 202-737-0001, 202-737-0002. if you want help with this, we will squeeze in as many as possible in this segment. here's your chance to do so. the lines are lit up this morning. let us go straight to chicago, illinois with tony. what school do you go to?

are you there? caller: bowling brook high school. i have two questions. why was the senate a bill to cut short -- [unintelligible] guest: your question is about the filibuster in the u.s. senate. you should know that the senate has a feature called on limited debate known as the filibuster. it allows any senator or group of the minority side to talk theoretically forever. guest: when you talk filibuster, make sure you know how the senate can end it. a closer vote of 3/5 majority -- hard to reach today. host: cleveland, ohio.

caller: hi. i would like to give a shout out to my government class. what are 527's and what is their role in the presidential election? guest: in the media, they are calling them superpacs. in our class, we are treating them as the same thing. this is an independent expenditure group which means they are outside of the traditional campaign finance limits. this allows corporations and individuals to give unlimited amounts of money to these 527 groups. they can not be coordinated with a campaign of the candidates. that is the clear distinction. this is an independent expenditure group. guest: one of the misnomers in campaign finance is that mccain -- the bipartisan campaign to --

the bipartisan campaign reform act created 527's. they close to the soft money loophole, which allowed unlimited money to go to the superpacs. host: some of the questions are as modern as 527's and some go back to the founding of our country. spokane, washington. hello. caller: -- host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my ap government teacher. hello? what your question? go ahead. caller: i would like to give

a shout out to my teacher. [unintelligible] host: we are talking about court cases. i could not hear you. guest: the test on tuesday will have court cases. let us not panic. too many to learn all. there are a few we will highlight. marbury versus madison establish judicial review. the authority to roll acts of congress or the president unconstitutional. but culliver says marilyn deals with national supremacy. -- mccullough versus maryland and deals with the national supremacy. mccullough versus maryland is very important to national supremacy. host: michigan. good morning the. caller: hi. i want to give a shout out to my class.

a member of the president's cavettbinet -- host: we are having a hard time hearing the questions. guest: when i teach about the cabinet, we look at the relationship between the cabinet and the president. advisersdent's closest come from his closest of staff. the executive office. the cabinet tends to be a mixed bag for the president because the secretaries have loyalty to their own cabinet. to their own agency. the cabinet is not as strong as one would think. guest: one of the things you can note about the cabinet versus the white house staff is that the white house staff does not have to be approved by the u.s. senate. for the -- it allows the president to surround himself with more loyal aides. like mr. larsen said, increasingly, presidents get their day to day advice from his staff.

host: how does the test of presidential powers? guest: it is all about power. when you talk about government, you are talking about who has the power. is it in the people? we would like to think so. the first three words are after all, we the people. host: just to give you an example of an issue of presidential power coming here is senator tom cole born talking about the issue of presidential recess appointment. [video clip] >> what we are about to say e today is the placing a partisan principals on both sides of the idle ahead of the principles of advice and consent and the senate's role. unfortunately, our letter -- our leader did not respect the

senate's role under the constitution with the last four nominations in terms of recess appointment. and, we can debate that but the fact is, the institution, whether it is republican or democrat, the number-one thing that needs to be protected or the rights of the senate as related to the other branches of the government. i think that is unfortunate and i think that is part of our problem today. as we fail to trust one another to do the right thing. host: that was senator tom coburn. here is a call from maryland. curtis. good morning. caller: i would like to give a shout out -- ok. how has the implied powers of our president increased throughout history? guest: these are the informal powers of the president.

they are not referenced in the constitution. the idea that the president, especially with the media, can speak to the american people for broadcast and internet and being able to shape public opinion really is giving him power to shape what is going on. guest: the thing to remember is that you are right. the four must powers of the president today are not seen in his explicit powers. not in the constitution. the implied powers. some would call an inherent powers. the dancing of presidential powers occurred because of tradition. let us think about executive agreements. executive orders. executive privilege. these are day-to-day tds by our president not mentioned in the constitution. host: would that be a multiple choice or as a question guest: both. we predict -- would that be multiple choice or as a? guest: both. that is one of our predicted

question. the informal powers of the president. guest: multiple choice is definitions. understanding what executive privilege is. in the free response question, it would that be unreasonable for them to ask, trace how power has increased over time, balancing formal powers and informal powers. host: here sean from california. caller: hi. this is sean. it is 6:30 a.m. in california. all of my friends and i got together to do this. we wanted to shout out to our school and our ap gov teacher. how does the bill of rights applied to the states through collective incorporation? what pieces of legislation implemented this policy? guest: if you are thinking like

this at 6:15 a.m., you are going to be fine next week when you take your ap test. selective and corporation, this is one of our favorite topics. it sounds to me like you aretino it. selective in corporation is the technical term that teaches us how the bill of rights has been applied to the states. originally, they protected us from the federal government. with cases that have happened, the court has used the due process clause of the 14th amendment, not bringing all bill of rights at one time into the federal jurisdiction, but little by little, the supreme court has applied the bill of rights to the states using the due process clause. guest: a classic case that exemplifies that is one in ohio or the supreme court said that state and local places must abide by the fourth amendment protection against on racial search and seizure.

-- unreasonable search and seizure. host: when the study began for this test? guest: we have students across the country who took this from august until december. then some students to pick up a semester starting in january until now. it is a lifestyle, pedro. [laughter] host: ohio. good morning to michael. caller: hi. i wanted to give a shout out to my teacher. what's up? olmstead versus the united states, what is that? in 1928. what was that about? guest: this is a court case i am not sure i have ever seen on the test. if you can use it, god bless you, my friend. i do not think this test will be a backcheck type question. it is not a history test. we know that for sure.

many of you took the displacement history class, there are many gotcha questions. this will be a straight black and white type of exam. guest: any court case will be connected to some kind of bigger concept. whether it is separation of powers or protection of civil liberties. take the clues from the questions. you have an obscure court case, take the clothes from the question and apply it and give an educated guess. guest: when court cases are on the exam, you will have an option. for those students out there panicking that there are a lot of cases to look at, you'll be fine. guest: i wish we had an option on that one. host: guest: i love federalism. i am predicting there will be a

federalism question on the frq's. it using the metaphor of marble cake. marble cake federalism really suggest the national state and local governments work together. a lot of times, we think of federalism as a layer cake. national government does this come state does this, local government does this. in our country, it is corporative. it is like a marble cake. all the responsibilities are melded together. take education policy, for instance. we might get a policy of congress that the states must enforce and local governments actually participate in. guest: we have been predicting a federalism question for a couple of years. how this federalism embodied in the elections in the u.s. versus things that the u.s. constitution requires? like suffrage for women in the 19th amendment versus what state and local governments require in terms of where you both. we have predicted one of those questions. at polito prep --

guest: watch the news and c- span. in the "new york times" they talked about initiating a voter identification lot to vote. indiana has one that in the supreme court but because of the voting rights act, the obama administration has said that that would violate the voting rights act of 1965. it is a great example of how federalism works in the elections and help watching the news today on c-span, tomorrow, read the newspaper, you will find answers for the fr q's and it will reinforce what you have studied by giving you prime some examples. host: hello. caller: i want to give a shout out to ap gov class and i wanted to ask what were the two clauses relating to the freedom of religion in the first amendment? guest: the first amendment

protects many different things including your right to religious liberty. one of them is your right to exercise your religion. that is the freedom of exercise. we have two clauses. the establishment and the free exercise. these are critical. you'll be asked that distinction in the multiple choice. supreme court has ruled many cases on this, of course. a wall of separation. there are two concepts. free exercise allows me to exercise their religion of my choice. the establishment clause to protect me from a state religion. host: this is of twitter -- guest: are we all? the iron triangle relates to policy and the bureaucracy. it is a way to understand policy-making. it involves the executive agency. that law is graded by congress

through congressional committees. a special interest group is trying to influence both the executive agency and congress and trying to shape policy. that is the iron triangle. guest: issue network is the key. do not be surprised if you see that rather than iron triangle. a host: nevada, timothy. caller: good morning. i would like to shout out to my teacher for doing a good job this year and my question is -- what are the advantages of income versus -- incumbency versus the challenger? guest: incumbents have the advantage. they have the advantage because they have more name recognition. they are able to collect more money, campaign donations, especially from special interest groups on capitol hill. and coming, and also have the advantage because they are unknown factor. they can go to your district in can visit your school. challenges do not have that --

challengers do not have that benefit. they can send free office mail, not campaign literature, but free office mail to their constituents. guest: it distinction on incumbency i would note is that a larger number of votes you are trying to secure to win an election, a less-come to see rates. -- though less high incumbency rates. districts that -- income as rates in the house are higher than the senate and lower than for the president. this is why in our election coming incumbency is not as critical a factor as it would be in the congressional election. host: on twitter -- guest: the electro college is based on a system of winner take all. -- the electoral college is based on a winner-take-all.

we see this in congressional elections, also. what that does is it provides no incentive if you finish second or third. and, so, their roles and theories that essentially that provides a disincentive for third parties to start. guest: the thing i would focus on is a plurality. we have plurality elections. the most votes wins. we have been following elections in france. they had to go 3 runoff because in the first series of elections, no clear winner was there. they need in the majority. we saw francois a lot and sarkozy go through second runoff. winner-take-all. the third-party's is very difficult. host: i will throw a question out. how does the filibuster limit to majority rule?

if you are paying attention, you might have heard this. you have one of five choices. host: again, if you want to take a stab at it, let us know. georgia, carolyn is next. good morning. caller: hi. i want to shout out to our teacher. he is the best guy ever. if you are watching this, you better come with us after the exam on tuesday. host: is he paying? caller: we will pay. [laughter] what is a bill of attainder and why is it important? guest: there were three

provisions that dealt with civil liberties. he habeus corpus, bill of attainder, and ex post facto. we do not need a bill of rights, some say. the bill of attainder guarantees you the right to a trial. he habeus corpus guarantees you to be told why you are being incarcerated and ex post facto protect you from retroactive justice. host: this is something we blogged about yesterday. we looked at what the original constitution does to protect civil liberties, things like preventing bills of attainder and ex post facto laws versus what the bill of rights did to protect civil liberties. very fair question. host: chicago. good morning. caller: i was the first question but i did not get to ask. how much power do they actually have over the people? guest: who is they? [laughter] host: but a massachusetts.

-- let us go to massachusetts. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my ap gov class. does congress help its constituents or the national government and how do you guys think that the abolition and the bureaucracy impacts those? -- that devolution and bureaucracy impacts those? guest: let us do with them one at a time. when we look at members of congress, that have multiple roles to play. they write laws. they provide oversight for the rest of the government. they provide constituent services. all three are valuable. constituent services speak to the idea that as a member of congress, i am here to represent you. let us not fault them when they come home and deal with a constituent who need a passport or someone who has never ceased

their social security benefits. this is constituent service. this is what we elect them for, to represent us in front of our government. devolution is an antiquated term. it goes back to the 90's. it is important because it speaks to federalism and the role of the national government. devolution was used by conservatives in the 90's and still is to describe the political philosophy that government should be limited. the national government should be a decrease in size and state government should increase in power. guest: an important topic that comes up about constituent services is the difference between the house and the senate. the house, with its two year term was invasion to be about local issues. the u.s. senate, with six-year terms, they were supposed to be focused on national issues. host: cheyenne asks -- guest: you are talking about the

way the supreme court to reaches decisions. we would like to think that our supreme court is above politics. justice is blind. we do know that there are two primary theories of how the justices come to their conclusions. one is judicial restraint. some call that regionalism. the other side would be activism. restraint -- they feel they should limit their opinions to what the words of the constitution say and what the original intent was of its writers. that is conservatives who hold that view. activists are those judges to feel that the constitution is a living document, it breeds. it changes. dare we say, it evolves. supreme court justices eve of their opinions with time. that how we looked at freedom of speech 100 years ago should be how we different -- should be different than today. guest: there is a latin phrase

for let it stand, or judicial precedents, you should know that. host: california. good morning. hello -- let me push the button. good morning. caller: i would like to shout out to my fifth. class. -- fifth period class. guest: you should know the basics. every piece of legislation that becomes a law has to pass both chambers in identical form before it goes on to the president. you should know that committees, especially in the house, play a vital role. every piece of legislation that is introduced is assigned to some committee. that is where most bills die. they die in committee. there pigeonholed and they never move out of the committee process. those are the fundamentals. guest: if your teachers are making breakfast, that is the

bill making process. it is not pretty. it is an ugly process. clearly, the opposition always has the advantage. guest: i have heard a lot of groups and -- is this a big weekend in help teachers get involved in preparing? guest: there is camaraderie in preparing for a ap exam. it is one of the special parts of have ap students. we see it in our own classrooms. make it more than the class. make a lifestyle. host: if they do well, how much -- guest: it is the equivalent of taking the course in college. there are points value to get passes. some institutions will except -- accept it. if you do your best, you'll do better in college. host: -- guest: we have gone through the nomination process. how do the political parties

choose their candidates? the republicans and the democrats do it differently. on the democratic side, we talked a little bit more about it superdelegate role. that is a filter. both republicans and democrats allow you and i -- the we the people, to choose their candidates. their caucuses and primaries. the democrats, more than republicans, also had a superdelegate. these are party leaders and officials could come in and also when there joyce -- land their choice. guest: the key point in the nomination process is that conventions are less important. they still exist. they are the place where we nominate the democratic and republican candidates for president. it is where we write the party platforms, which are the issues dances. for the last 40, almost 50 years, the most important step in the nominations process are primary elections and caucuses.

they allow ordinary voters to go out there and pick their preferred nominees. host: longbranch, california. this is cayley. good morning. are you there? caller: i would like to give a shout out to my fourth period class. what is the difference between fiscal and monetary policy? guest: this is how they stop me in class. i am not an economist. i am not sure who are the economist. fiscal and monetary policy is an important distinction between what our national government does care what the obama administration is responsible for and what our pet reserve is responsible for. it is supposed to be independent of the political process. monetary policy is what the federal reserve does. they worry about interest groups and money supply. that is supposed to be somewhat independent of the political process. that is monetary policy.

fiscal policy is really government. taxing and spending. making decisions based on the budget. if you follow obama's budget versus the republican budget, that is the debate over fiscal policy. guest: monetary policy is deciding what the value of money will be. especially interest rates. fiscal policy really is two different groups you might want to know about. the omb, which advises the president, and the cbo, the correctional budget office, which runs the numbers on this policy. host: -- guest: not on the american test. runoff election is how we elected president in france and the mayor of chicago. you have a two round election. the first round has multi candidates. if any candidate gets a

majority, 50%, they automatically win. otherwise, the top two candidates to run off against each other. there are they -- there by the. being a majority. -- thereby guaranteeing a majority. we have a direct election. let today is where we the voters are indirectly affecting the president. it takes 270 electors to be elected president. host: california. josh, good morning. caller: i would like to give a shout out to my second period class. can you go into greater detail isout sunshine law and iwhat their significance? guest: does congress revisit the decisions they made in the previous year? that is a sunshine law mentality where laws have to be revisited. frankly, we can only hope. the government is so

complicated. once it is passed, it is hard to repeal. guest: there two laws involving the son. sunset provision. most tests. unless it has agreed to most pass unless it has a -- most pass unless it has an expiration date. the chief sunshine laws is the freedom of information act that allows citizens to access information from its government. thereby injuring more transparency of government. host: -- guest: student should know about the federalist papers, both 10 and 51 and also the idea that they were written by supporters of the ratification of the congress. -- the constitution. host: it is the institutional

obstacle to voting. nobody has answered the question. here are your possible answers -- host: if you want to try it, let us know. florida. caller: hello. good morning. how much of the federal budget process timeline do you think will be on the test and what are some important notes? guest: the budget reform act sets up the process today. the president proposes a budget, the budget is written by congress and has to be approved by the president. one of the things the law did is it disallowed presidential and -- presidential funds.

if congress appropriates the money, the president has to spend that money. guest: i would focus on the terms like mandatory spending. at those types of things. entitlements. whenever the congress deals with a budget, they are dealing with women's. they do not start from scratch. the majority of the budget has already been determined by these entitlement programs. social security, medicare. these are mandatory spending items. the discretionary piece of our federal budget is relatively small. host: off of twitter -- guest: there is another one of the panic questions. there are millions of federal government employees. do we need to know all of them? let us hope not. the occasional -- they will occasionally throw in a surprise. the solicitor general is the main surprise. he is in the department of justice and it is the attorney

of the federal government. the solicitor general is responsible to go before the supreme court and argue the state's cause. the united states cause. the attorney general is a department's secretary, the head of the justice department. guest: the solicitor general were to the attorney general. we know that the most recent supreme court justice had been solicitor general. she was president obama's for solicitor general. host: ohio. good morning. how are you? caller: good morning. host: how is the study in going? caller: pretty well. i would like to give a shout out to my teacher. can you please explain the difference between the speaker of the house, the majority leader, and the party? guest: i would love to. when you look at congress, you do not have to look at the leaders. u.s. a terrific question. i would know the distinction both in the house and the senate. the most powerful person in the house of representatives clearly

is the speaker of the house. run by the majority party. currently, the republicans have the majority of seats in the house sense of the speaker, speaker boehner, is a republican. his primary duty is to determine the calendar. keep this party together and determine the calendar so the republicans are allowed to vote on those issues that benefit the majority party. the majority leader in the house is the floor leader. once the legislation is out, the majority leader is the conductor of the orchestra. making sure the parties together. the wit is the bean counter. they go down to make sure the party is held together. the party discipline is tight. if the discipline is fragmented, he will go to the leader and say we need to delay the vote. posit and keep our party together. guest: congressional blitz often ties to use sticks -- carrots are rewards and sticks her punishment. guest: on the senate side, there

is no speaker. the most powerful leader on the senate side is the majority leader. he does the calendar and >> -- orchestrates the senate. host: california. good morning. caller: period 4 -- thank you to my teacher. could you explain how supreme court cases are selected? guest: in order for a case to be heard by the supreme court, it takes four of the nine justices to agree to hear the case. granting a writ of certain. 8008 -- 8000 cases are appealed. they hear about 80. the odds are low your cases will be -- different justices have different procedures. some like to go through each of them. others like to delegate that to their law clerks. it depends on the chambers.

guest: what increases the chance of a case is if there is a conflict at a lower federal court level. host: kentucky. this is shelley. hi. caller: hi. i would like to shout out to my teacher. what is the main constitutional issue between the president and congress over the decision to go to war? guest: you should know the checks and balances when it comes to the military and were making. one of the very often misunderstood aspects of american government is that the president has to approve a declaration of war. that is not the case. only congress approves the declaration of war. we have not done that since 1941. guest: the primary powers of the president as founded in the constitution -- if they deal with foreign policy. the president does have a leg up in sending troops and those types of things. there is a balance. let us not forget that congress

declares war. guest: congress also approved money for the military, which is one of the ultimate checks and balances. even as commander in chief, he can deploy troops but kias to rely on the money congress approves. guest: congress has the power of the purse. host: new jersey. elizabeth is the last call. caller: hello. [unintelligible] guest: i heard something about political parties. guest: this is the blue slip and senatorial courtesy. there is more than just the supreme court in terms of this. all the lower levels of the court has to be approved, this is something we have a lot about. -- blogged about. the center for the state has a great amount of power to suggest names for the president and also sometimes to -- a possible federal judge nominees at the

lower level. guest: the senatorial courtesy is much more likely for the district judge's, less so for the supreme court judges. host: we did not get anybody to take our response but we had one of twitter as far as the question. -- guest: she is correct. host: congratulations. thank you for participating. i know we could not get everybody's questions. if you need more information, where can they go? guest: we are answering questions at politico prep./ citizenu.org . students can also vote on the best civics vocabulary word in the country. the country. host: